U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann says the Obama administration's actions after the deadly attacks in Libya appear to have been politically motivated and deliberately misleading to the American people

Story Highlights

The Sept. 11, 2012, attack has been the subject of several investigations and reviews

U.S. ambassador, 4 other Americans killed in attacks, which were carried out by extremists

Morrell served six presidents during 33 years at the CIA

WASHINGTON – Former CIA acting director Michael Morrell, testifying publicly for the first time Wednesday about the Benghazi attack in 2012 that killed a U.S. ambassador, said he received reports from the CIA chief in Libya that no protest preceded the attacks but he decided based on analysis performed in Washington, D.C., that those reports were wrong.

That meant that based on talking points prepared by Morrell, the CIA — and the rest of the Obama administration — continued for almost two weeks to assert falsely to the American people that the attack erupted out of spontaneous demonstrations related to a YouTube video.

In fact, there were no protests and the attack was carried out by a heavily armed group that included Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans were killed.

Republicans have accused Morrell and others in the administration of deliberately misleading the public in an effort to protect President Barack Obama in the final weeks of his re-election bid.

Morrell insisted during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that there was no such cover-up.

"I never allowed politics to influence what I said or did, never," he said. "Neither I nor anyone else at the CIA worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that

compromised our responsibility to the American people."

The administration's response and erroneous initial analysis following the Sept. 11, 2012, attack has been the subject of several investigations and reviews, including one initiated by the State Department that found numerous failings, including weaknesses in security and communication. The department, under the leadership of Hillary Rodham Clinton at the time, pledged to implement improvements to ensure such attacks do not happen again.

But many Republicans continue to blast the administration and say they still haven't gotten straight answers. One central issue at the hearing Wednesday was the editing of the talking points prepared by Morrell and then used by Susan Rice, then-ambassador to the United Nations, during television appearances.

The points perpetuated the false narrative that the attacks grew out of spontaneous protests against an American anti-Muslim video. But during the editing process staffers in the CIA's public affairs and congressional relations offices had deleted the words "with ties to al-Qaida" and changed the word "attacks" to "demonstrations." In addition, CIA operational officers had the phrase "they participated in the attacks" changed to "participated in violent demonstrations."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, contended during the hearing that the end result was deliberately misleading. And too politically convenient for the president to be coincidental.

"Somehow, it strangely added up with the view of the White House six weeks before the presidential election that al-Qaida was nearly defeated and the global war on terror was over. Everyone knows that wasn't true," Bachmann said. "That was the narrative of the White House in the run-up to the presidential election. How weird that that ultimately was reflected in the talking points against all knowledge from people on the ground and knowledge that this committee had.

"That's why we're upset. Because the American people, from my perspective, were intentionally misled by this administration as to what happened in Benghazi."

Morrell, who served six presidents during 33 years at the CIA before his retirement last year, maintained that he and others in the intelligence community sincerely believed the attack evolved spontaneously from a protest.

"That turned out to be incorrect but that is what they believed at the time," he said. "So there is no politics there whatsoever."

He said that at the time, the CIA's knowledge that some of the attackers had ties to al-Qaida came from classified sources and so could not be released to the public without first being declassified.

The talking points were based on an assessment by the agency's top analyst for the region two days after the attack, he said. That analyst relied on intelligence and media reports saying there was a protest. Morrell said he received a report three days later from the agency's lead officer in Libya saying that wasn't true. But he eventually discounted it after further review.

Morrell said the lead officer was relying on news accounts — which could have been wrong considering they conflicted with other media reports — and on eyewitnesses who likely would have arrived at the scene after protesters had dispersed.

The analyst did not have access to eyewitness accounts or closed-circuit video until days later. Morrell said one of the major lessons learned was to get such material much sooner in the future.

"I do not want to come across as being defensive regarding either the analysis or the talking points. Both had their flaws," Morrell said in prepared written testimony. "I recognize that the agency and I could have done a better job on some aspects of our work on Benghazi.

"But none of the flaws in our work, in any way, reflect any intention to mislead Congress or the American people or any intention to provide political benefit to anyone."

Daily Poll

What do you think was behind the bad information about the Benghazi attack? Place your vote here. See results on Friday's Opinion page.